Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Broadening perception

How
broad is your outlook? Do you, for example, consider a football field as a
large playing field, a small patch of grass that comprises part of a much larger
landscape, or both?

People
generally seem to prefer to function with a narrow view on life. I reached that
conclusion experientially, observing that most people who attended the same meetings
I did, whether in civilian organizations or the military, usually focused on
details, small issues, or narrow slices of large problems. Discussion of the large
issues, issues of considerable breadth and depth, invariably seemed to gravitate
around a subset of details that, from the larger perspective, were actually
incidental or trivial.

Consultation
with a variety of mentors forced me to accept the proposition that most people
found large issues so complex, challenging, or overwhelming in scope that they
preserved face and remained in their comfort zones by limiting their comments
and opinions to particular facets and avoiding proffering an opinion on the
larger issue.

Votes
on broad issues by members of groups with more than a dozen people appear to
follow a similar, predictable pattern. Having remained silent or voiced an
opinion on some aspect of the larger issue, a majority of people present typically
vote in support of either their perception of how the majority will vote or their
leader(s) of choice's position.

Big,
complex issues – for example, how to avoid the impending fiscal cliff in the
U.S. or how to restructure a non-profit organization – admittedly require a
breadth of knowledge that nobody is likely to have. People also often lack the
courage to take risks and to make decisions with admittedly incomplete information
in ambiguous situations.

One
consequence of this widespread proclivity for disliking and thus avoiding
grappling with big questions is that it cedes power to the relative handful of individuals
who are willing, indeed, who perhaps relish, the opportunity to deal with such
questions. This popular bias against big questions becomes apparent in how
candidates for public office conduct their campaigns: they focus on sound bites
and image rather than offering careful, substantive analysis of the principle
issues. Few people read, much less thoroughly digest, the point papers prepared
by presidential campaigns.

Carol
Gilligan, an American psychologist and feminist, showed spider webs to men and
women. Men generally saw a threat, while women saw interconnectedness. In other
words, a variety of sociological, psychological, and physiological factors that
can include gender, age, race, emotional state, employment, class, etc. shape
human perceptions.

The
majority preferring to abdicate direct responsibility for large decisions can therefore
skew those decisions in favor of the people willing to make those decisions. I
think that this happens many times at the intersection of politics and
economics, as evidenced by policies that benefit elites rather than the broader
populace. Even decisions nominally made for the benefit of non-elites may, in
fact, benefit elites by allowing the elites to remain in power. The Roman Empire's
grain subsidies for Roman residents illustrate this.

Psychological
egoism is the theory that humans act in ways that the individual perceives to
be in her or his best interest. Psychological egoism coheres well with my
observation that most people focus on smaller issues, ignoring the larger ones.
A person's world, in very many respects, consists of those people, things, and
ideas that impinge directly and recognizably upon one's existence. Shifting
focus from the narrow (self) to the broadly inclusive (all people, the entire
planet) is difficult, even when presented with reasonable evidence that what is
good for the larger picture will most often be best for self.

For
example, I want to travel safely and minimum inconvenience. Therefore, I reasonably
want rules that target others because I know that I do not pose a threat to
anyone's safety. However, rules that target others may have the unintended
consequences of ignoring people with salient characteristics similar to me but who
do pose a threat to my safety; these rules may also have ramifications that
ripple beyond transportation safety, such as creating or exacerbating societal
divisions by using stereotypes or profiles.

Important
values of a liberal arts education, which hopefully begins in elementary school
and then continues through high school and college or vocational school even
for people whose studies are concentrated in the scientists or learning a
trade, are learning to think, to frame questions, to be comfortable with
ambiguity. Exploring great literature, art, history, philosophy, and religion push
people to expand their horizons and to struggle with ambiguity and problems for
which no simple solutions exist. Travel can similarly expand one's ability and
comfort in dealing with large issues.

The
best of religion promotes ethical living through facilitating abundant living, aiding
us to love our neighbors more fully, or assisting us to struggle with life's
big issues. Advent and Christmas especially call attention to questions about
the future of all creation (cf. Ethical Musings Advent:
Looking to the future) or experiencing God's presence in our midst (e.g., Ethical
Musings The
Christmas Myth).